Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Rosh Hashanah 8 - October 17, 11 Cheshvan Oct 17, 2021

Show notes

This week of learning is sponsored by Beth Hait "in memory of Dr. Chaya Gorsetman, a lifelong learner and gifted educator who inspired me to start learning the daf at the beginning of this cycle."

Today's daf is sponsored by Adeena and Marc Haber for a refuah shleima for their son Yair Amitai ben Adeena Rachel who is undergoing a medical procedure today. And anonymously in honor of the yahrtzeit of Rachel Imeinu "Rachel bat Lavan".

What is the source of the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon/Rabbi Elazar regarding the date for the animal tithes? First, it is suggested that they both derive it from the same verse (Tehillim 65:14) discussing what time of year sheep conceive sheep. However, after raising a question with the interpretations of Rabbi Shimon/Rabbi Elazar, they conclude that they each derive it from a comparison to tithes on food, each comparing it in a different manner. The Mishna had stated the first of Tishrei is Rosh Hashanah for years. Rav Papa says this refers to documents, and this is explained to be referring to ones written with the years of gentile kings, otherwise, it would conflict with the beginning of the Mishna. However, a question is raised against this as Rav Chisda, an amora, made the distinction between Jewish and gentile kings and why would an amora teach something already stated in the Mishna? The Gemara brings two answers. An alternate explanation is brought – that "years" means for judgment, that God judges us on the first of Tishrei for that year. This is derived from Tehillim 91:5. Several other drashot on that verse are brought. The first of Tishrei is Rosh Hashanah for Shmita. From what verse is this derived? It is also Rosh Hashanah for the jubilee year. This matches Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka's opinion, as the rabbis hold that it starts on Yom Kippur. Two braitot that deal with the debate between them are brought.

Rosh Hashanah 7 - Shabbat October 16, 10 Cheshvan Oct 15, 2021

Show notes

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 7

Today's daf is sponsored by Risa Tzohar in memory of her grandmother Rissel Schwartz Wittels, Rissel bat Dina v'Shmuel Lev on her yahrzeit today.

A braita states that the first of Nissan is the first of the year for other issues – for months, determining a leap year and for shekalim for the new year's sacrifices. Another opinion there adds for rentals. The Gemara delves into the meaning of each of these and then explains why the Mishna didn't mention them as well. The line in the Mishna about the animal tithes, first of Elul, matches Rabbi Meir's opinion, as proven by a braita. However, the line before it is Rabbi Shimon (first of Nissan for the holidays, as explained on Rosh Hashanah 4a) and the line after it is Rabbi Shimon, so the structure seems strange. The answer given is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi held like Rabbi Meir on one issue and Rabbi Shimon on another. But then, how does the number "four" mentioned in the Mishna fit, as there are five separate dates? Two explanations are brought – either the number is according to each Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon separately. Or the number goes by months and not by dates. A braita is brought where two more dates are mentioned, which should add either one or two more cases to the Mishna. Why were these not mentioned in the Mishna? Three answers are brought and questions are raised on each.

Rosh Hashanah 6 - October 15, 9 Cheshvan Oct 15, 2021

Show notes

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 6

Today's daf is sponsored by Penny Gershman in memory of Shaindl Statman Stein. Shaindl started learning daf yomi this cycle and unfortunately passed away this week.

Why does the braita bring a verse to introduce the idea that if one does not bring the animal in a prescribed time, the person has committed a sin, however, the animal is not disqualified from being sacrificed. Isn't this learned out from other places? This appears both by a firstborn and Ben Azai learned it from the verse in pigul - that only there it is disqualified by not if one missed the time. The firstborn could be specifically there, but based on the question from pigul, the Gemara suggests emending the text to excluding one's wife from being held responsible. In what case is one's wife held responsible for her husband's actions? From where is this derived? Near the verse about the vows regarding one who does not bring one's vows in time, there is an additional verse in Devarim 23:24 relating to keeping one's vows. A braita states that there is a positive commandment, as well as a negative commandment in this verse and that the court can force one to fulfill this obligation. It also derives that it not only refers to vows but to other obligations as well. Several questions are raised on this braita, each one asking about a different aspect of the drashot as to why is the drasha needed if the same idea is derived from a different verse. The answer given is that each one is coming to relate to a different case - one where the person said they would bring a sacrifice but never designated and the other when one designated but did not bring it to the Temple. This is questioned because no such case exists that one would say without designating by a nedava offering, as a Mishna is brought to explain the differences between a neder and a nedava. This is answered as well. Rava brings a number of halakhot about the prohibition of delaying and each time a difficulty is raised against him from a braita and is resolved. In one of the braitot it mentions a case where a year could pass without all three holidays passing - how can this be? Several possibilities are brought based on different opinions in other related debates. Is one who inherits liable for delaying? Is a woman liable? In Rosh Hashanah 5b, a braita was brought discussing the age limit for a firstborn animal. From when is that counted - from birth or from the 8th day when it is able to be brought as a sacrifice?

Rosh Hashanah 5 - October 14, 8 Cheshvan Oct 14, 2021

Show notes

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 5

Today's daf is sponsored by Jennifer in honor of Paul Corwin. "Thank you for introducing me to the Daily Daf and for making every step of this life journey a joy. You yourself are a Tree of Life. Your heart is full of all the warmth of Shabbat and wherever you go you leave Mitzvahs behind. All blessings to you my dear friend."

The Gemara continues the discussion from a braita regarding the five approaches regarding when one is obligated for delaying bringing a sacrifice. Those who derived from the verse "On the holiday of the matzot, on the holiday of Shavuot and on the holiday of Sukkot" an analogy from Pesach to Shavuot that one has seven days in which to bring the Chagiga sacrifice even on Shavuot, what do they derive from the reference to Sukkot in the verse? They make an analogy from Pesach to Sukkot that one needs to stay overnight in Jerusalem on the holiday. The ones who need the verse about the holidays to relate to delays in sacrifices, from where do they derive that on Shavuot one has seven says to bring the Chagiga sacrifice? They learn it from Rosh Chodesh. The Gemara refers back to the braita that mentioned all the types of sacrifices/promises in which the prohibition to delay is effective. In this braita, a Pesach sacrifice is mentioned. Why? Doesn't it need to be brought on Pesach – how can one offer it on a different holiday. One answer is that it got there by mistake. Another is to say that it is referring to one who designated an animal for Pesach but did not sacrifice it – in that case, it becomes a peace offering. Another braita is brought which takes the verse where delaying is mentioned – only in reference to a vow – and derives from it the other types of items that we saw previously. Two other laws are derived from this verse. One is: "he" and not his exchange. The Gemara tries to determine what is meant by exchange. Another is: "And in thee was sin." From there they derive that the sin is upon the person but the sacrifice is not disqualified. A question is raised against this as it seems to be derived from a different verse by the firstborn.

Rosh Hashanah 4 - October 13, 7 Cheshvan Oct 13, 2021

Show notes

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 4

Today's daf is sponsored by Sami Groff "in memory of my father, Rabbi Abner Groff. It is fitting that we are starting to learn Masechet Rosh Hashana at the time of your yahrzeit – the High Holiday tefillot were the highlight of your year as a Chazan- after weeks of preparation, your incredibly beautiful tefillot inspired all who had the privilege to hear them. We miss you always." And by Rachel Alexander Levy in honor of the birthday of Miriam Sophie Levy. "Happy 8th Birthday to my daughter! You inspire me to learn the daf every day."

The Gemara resolved the contradiction Rav Yosef raised in the two sets of verses about Darius (one seemed to have the count start from Nissan and the other from Tishrei) by saying that one took place when Darius was good to the Jews and the other once he became bad. Rav Kahana asks if it is true if Darius became a bad king. Four answers are brought to show that he did become bad. Questions are raised on these answers and some are resolved. Referring back to the Mishna where it said that the first of Nissan is the first for the holiday, what is the relevance of this? One who takes a vow cannot delay in bringing it. What is considered a delay? Rabbi Shimon held that after three holidays pass in their order - and the order begins with Nissan, Pesach. His opinion is one of five opinions regarding this halakha and all are brought in a braita. From where in the Torah is each opinion derived and what does each one do with the verses that the others use for their proof?

Rosh Hashanah 3 - October 12, 6 Cheshvan Oct 12, 2021

Show notes

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 3

Today's daf is sponsored by Glenda Sacks Jaffe in honor of Rhona, Sharna & Diana "and my amazing San Diego Chavruta" and by Shmulik and Ronit Shavit in honor of the birth of their grandson, son of Lior and Yosi Weiss.

How do we know that Aharon died before Moshe began his speech, thereby proving that the counting from the Exodus began from the first of Nissan and not from the first of Tishrei? Because Moshe spoke after the killing of Sichon and the verse tells us that the Canaanite King of Arad came to attack upon hearing of Aharon's death which had brought about the removal of the cloud of glory that had protected the Jews in the desert. What is the connection between the Caananite and Sichon? How do we know that it wasn't from Iyar, Sivan, Tamuz, Av or Adar, all of which could have been the month the counting began and still the verses with Aharon and Moshe would have worked. Different verses, some from the Torah and one from Chronicles are brought to prove it. Rav Chisda says that the Rosh Hashana for kings that is on the first of Nissan is only for Jewish kings, but kings of other nations are counted from the first of Tishrei. He derives it from Nechemia 1:1 and Nechemia 2:1. Rav Yosef questions Rav Chisda based on verses from Chagai 1:15 and Chagai 2:1 regarding Darius's (Daryavesh) reign. Rabbi Abahu answers by saying that Cyrus (Coresh) was a good king to the Jews as he allowed them to rebuild the Temple and therefore his years were counted like Jewish kings. Rav Yosef asks two questions – one, other verses about Darius in Ezra 6:15 and Ezra 7:8 seem to follow the calendar for kings of other nations and secondly, Rav Yosef was talking about Darius and Rabbi Abahu talked about Cyrus! The Gemara answers the second question by bringing a braita in which it states that they were the same person. The answer to the first question is that Darius was good to the Jews but then turned against them. Once things changed, his reign was counted like the kings of the nations of the world.

Rosh Hashanah 2 - October 11, 5 Cheshvan Oct 11, 2021

Show notes

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 2

Masechet Rosh Hashana is sponsored anonymously in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

This week of Masechet Rosh Hashanah is sponsored by Rabia and Oliver Mitchell in honor of their daughter Ellin Mitchell Cooper becoming a Yoetzet Halacha. "Ellin, we are so proud of you and your dedication to Klal Yisrael. We look forward to great things to come! Hazak Hazak v' nithazek."

There are different dates that are considered the dates for the start of the year for different issues. First of Nissan is the first day of the year for kings and the holidays. First of Elul is for animal tithes, although Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say it's the first of Tishrei. The first of Tishrei is for counting years, shmita and the jubilee, for orla and vegetable tithes. Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about tithing fruit trees whether it's the 1st or 15th of Shevat. The Gemara proceeds to explain the relevance of the cases in the Mishna. The first of the year for kings is relevant for documents to know if a document with the incorrect date will be disqualified or not. A braita is brought that has several laws related to king years. Even if a king were to begin his rule on the last day before Nissan, as soon as it becomes the first of Nissan, it is considered his second year. If two kings rule in the same year, one can count by either one. If one dies in Adar and the other takes over in Nissan, the first year is counted for the first king and the second year by the next. The Gemara questions all these cases? Aren't they obvious? Each one is brought to teach a particular detail. Rabbi Yochanan brings a verse to teach the fact that we count from Nissan as it compares the counting of the reign of Solomon to the counting of the Exodus from Egypt, which is from Nissan. From where do we know that the counting of the Exodus is from Nissan and not Tishrei? That is derived from the description of the timing of the death of Aharon and the speech of Moshe before his death.

Beitzah 40 - Siyum Masechet Beitzah, October 10, 4 Cheshvan Oct 10, 2021

Show notes

English Study Guide 40

If one wants to give guests food to take home, the food will be limited by the techum of the host, unless he/she had someone acquire it on erev Yom Tov on behalf of the others. The Gemara brings a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding one who gives fruits to another to watch - according to whose techum can they be moved? The owner or the one watching? Do their opinions fit in with their opinions in a case of property damages? Or are the cases not comparable? The Gemara raises several questions on Rav's opinion from the cases in our Mishna. A case is brought of a piece of meat hung for a guest on a door. Rav Huna ruled that it depended on whether it was placed there by the guest or the innkeeper. The Gemara questions both aspects of his ruling based on laws regarding techumim and the Gemara concludes that the issue had nothing to do with techumim but rather whether one can assume the meat placed there was the same meat as was taken by the guest or does one need to be concerned that it may have been switched by non-kosher meat? One can water and slaughter domestic animals on Yom Tov but not desert animals. Why did they water the animals? Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi and the rabbis disagree about which animals fall into which category. One can infer from here that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds by laws of muktze. But didn't he answer a question about Rabbi Shimon's opinion that dates that won't ripen on a tree and are put in a basket to ripen are not muktze because there are no laws of muktze other than figs and grapes that are set aside to dry? The Gemara offers three answers.

Beitzah 39 - Shabbat October 9, 3 Cheshvan Oct 08, 2021

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Rav Ovadia Yosef, Ovadia Yosef ben Yaakov

According to Rabbi Yehuda, if one borrows water for one's dough, one does not need to limit carrying one's dough within the techum of the owner of the water. However, salt would limit it. How does this work with other tannaitic sources – one says that salt is nullified and therefore wouldn't limit and another says that water is not nullified, and both are said in Rabbi Yehuda's name. The Gemara resolves these contradictions by explaining that the salt in each source is referring to different kinds of salts and the cooked dish with water is referring to different types of sauces (more/less liquidy). There are five laws that differentiate between coals and a flame because a coal is something with substance and a flame is not. The laws relate to carrying them within techum, ones that are sanctified or used for idol worship, carrying to the public domain on Shabbat, and one who vowed not to benefit from someone. The law of carrying to the public domain contradicts a source that says one is liable for carrying out a flame. The response is that one is liable if the flame is attached to a wood chip or vessel. If one takes water from a cistern, how far can the water be taken? The law is different for different types of cisterns – private, public for the city, ones built on the road from Babylonia to Israel for those traveling that route to get to Israel. The Gemara concludes it must be dealing with water that is collected, not moving, as water that is moving, as in a stream, has no limitations. If one drew water from cisterns on the way to Israel from Babylonia for someone else, Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet disagree about whether it would be limited by the person who drew the water or the person for whom it was drawn. The Gemara first suggests that the debate is based on whether one holds that this type of cistern was hefker, ownerless, or owned collectively. However, this is rejected by other tannaitic sources from which it seems clear that these cisterns were not viewed as being owned collectively. Therefore, the debate is understood differently – if one picks up a lost item for another, since one cannot acquire it for the other person, does one acquire it for oneself or not. If one's fruits were in a different city, under what circumstances would one be able to get them into his city?

Beitzah 38 - October 8, 2 Cheshvan Oct 08, 2021

Show notes

Study Guide Beitzah 38

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara and Danny Berelowitz "in honor of our newest granddaughter Avigayil Yova, daughter to Meyer and Chava Sterman."

The Gemara proves that Rabbi Yochanan does not hold by laws of breira, retroactive designation, even in rabbinic laws, by bringing a case of a condition made regarding an eruv techumim. Therefore, they revert back to saying that Rabbi Hoshaya was the one who holds by breira, but only in rabbinic laws, not Torah laws. Some questions are raised against parts of the Mishna as they seem to be obvious and therefore why would the Mishna need to state them. When Rabbi Abba went to Israel he wanted to make a good impression. However, they asked him a question about the woman who borrowed ingredients for her dough and wanted to know why the water and salt weren't' nullified into the dough. Rabbi Abba gave an example of one who has 10 kav of wheat and someone else's kav of wheat got mixed in and it was not nullified. The rabbis in Israel laughed at him as they held that also regarding the wheat they would be nullified as the rabbis hold that even when something mixes with the type of item (min b'mino) it is nullified. Rav Safra defended Rabbi Abba's position by comparing it to a case of one who takes pebbles out of a batch of wheat. One is required to replace them, even though one would say that the pebbles are nullified as the owner could have sold the wheat with the pebbles as if they were wheat. The same can be said for the dough – that the water and salt add volume and therefore are not nullified. However, Abaye rejects the comparison. Rav Safra tries to support his claim but Abaye continues to reject it. The Gemara goes back to answering the question of the rabbis in Israel – why are the water and salt not nullified. Three answers are brought.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected